MANROOP KOER Vs. COOMARI RODESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only substantial question in this appeal relates to the genuineness of an ikrarnamah, which is alleged by the Respondents to have been duly executed in their favour, on the 13th of December, 1852, by the deceased Ramkishen Singh, the husband of the late Rajroop Koer, the original Appellant, whose daughter, Coomari Rodheshwar, has now been substituted as Appellant by an Order in Council of the 24th of June, 1885.

(2.) RADHA Mohun Singh, who died on the 24th of December, 1850 was owner of an estate consisting of shares of numerous villages in pergunnahs Mahashee and Bibrah. On his decease, the estate was claimed, on the one hand, by Ramkishen Singh, as his maternal grandson and heir ah intestato, and, on the other hand, by Roghunundun Singh, son of Dost Dewan, an elder brother of Radha Mohun, as the guardian of Deonundun Singh, who was his nephew and a grandson of Dost Dewan. The Respondents, Manroop Koer and Janki Koer, are, respectively, the widow and daughter of Hurnundun, son of Radha Mohun, who died many years before his father. It is not matter of dispute that the Respondents were and are entitled to maintenance from the estate of Radha Mohun.

(3.) ON the 4th of October, 1852, Ramkishen brought a suit before the Zillah Court of Sarun, against Deonundun, and his brother Sheonundun, who had meanwhile succeeded to the guardianship on the death of Roghunundun, for the purpose of setting aside the will, and of establishing his right to succeed, as heir, to the estate of Radha Mohun. The suit was defended mainly on these grounds, - that there had been no partition of the ancestral estate between Radha Mohun and his brother Dost Dewan, and that the will of Radha Mohun had been duly executed. As regards the first of these defences, it is sufficient, for the purposes of the present case, to state that, whilst the Judge of first instance decided that there had been complete partition, the Judges of the High Court were of opinion that there had been none; and that, on appeal to this Board, their Lordships held that there had been a separation of the families and their estates, but that twenty-six villages or lots, forming part of the property in dispute, were excluded from the partition. As regards the second of these defences, all three tribunals pronounced against the validity of the will. The Judge of the Zillah Court was of opinion that there was no sufficient proof to establish the validity of the will; but the conclusion to which the High Court came, upon the evidence, was, "that the wasiutnama was not executed by Radha Mohun Singh, and that he did not give possession of his share of the estate to Roghunundun Singh as guardian for the minor Deonundun, but retained it till the time of his death." In accordance with its usual practice, this Board affirmed the concurrent decisions of the Courts below, upon this part of the case, it being admitted by the Defenders' counsel "that no special grounds existed upon which they could hope to disturb on appeal these concurrent judgments upon a question of fact." The result of the litigation, which began in October, 1852, and was terminated by the judgment of this Board on the 25th of March, 1875, was to affirm the right of Ramhishen to take, as heir, the whole estate of Radha Mohun, with the exception of the twenty-six villages or lots which were held to be joint ancestral estate.